Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Mammal most likely to explode would be the one who has the largest population in Malaria regions already, is most susceptible to infection and has the highest mortality rate from infection.

That would be human beings.

Whether or not a further homo sapien population explosion in Africa is something you consider a good or a bad thing may be debated by some (batshit insane) people. Personally though, I reckon this is one case where advocating population control through birth control is probably better than advocating it through mass infections by a parasite that causes perhaps one of the most painful deaths in nature.

PS. Writing as somebody who has actually HAD malaria. Fortunate enough not to have had a resistant strain. I live in Africa (though I no longer live in a Malaria region, I grew up in one).

Some people have speculated that the population explosion in African and Asian countries is caused by high mortality rates. When parents need children for farming, working, or for dowries -- and when there is a relatively high risk of the child dying before puberty -- people opt to have a lot of children to ensure that they survive to be productive.

I'm not saying I believe it, but one has to be careful in assuming that a decrease in mortality will necessarily mean an increase in population.

You should believe it.. It's the main reason family sizes have shrunk in modern civilization - the need to have many children to do these activities has diminished, thus the need to have many children has diminished.

It might seem bad, or not politically correct, to think this way but if you look at family sizes over the last 1000 years in first world nations you will see the trend.

Writing as someone who also had malaria (P.falciparum and vivax simultaneously), I'd like to correct this because it's simply not true. Not in any way, shape or form. And I had the most dangerous form you can get.

Worst case scenario, you spend a week cycling through chills and fevers, fevers and chills. Then you get TIRED. So tired you can barely move. Eventually, you go into a coma. After that there's plenty of bad shit going on to your sys

>Writing as someone who also had malaria (P.falciparum and vivax simultaneously), I'd like to correct this because it's simply not true. Not in any way, shape or form. And I had the most dangerous form you can get.

Right, so did I. In fact, I got it in Nigeria. Neither of us however have DIED of it. I doubt you went through the final stage symptoms because htey are invariable fatal - I didn't either. But what you list are the symptoms th

Honest question -- how can pain killers not have an effect? Is it analogous to "phantom limb pain"? i.e. I thought the pain killers literally turned off the signals from the nerves to the brain that 'make' the pain. So the brain must be making up the pain all by itself?

Okay. I said ONE OF the most painful ways in nature. First I never claimed it was THE most painful, and secondly I SPECIFICALLY restricted it to natural deaths. Burning to death doesn't count. Very few diseases have such an extended and incredibly torturous gestation.

Again, see what you're doing here? I get where you're coming from, but you're going about it the wrong way. Misinformation doesn't help anyone, particularly the millions who die every year from it.

Worst case scenario, you spend a week cycling through chills and fevers, fevers and chills. Then you get TIRED. So tired you can barely move. Eventually, you go into a coma. After that there's plenty of bad shit going on to your system but you don't feel any of it because you're in a coma. Then you die. I didn't personally get to this part, but I'm guessing it's as painless as the coma was. According to my parents, I was certainly thrashing around a lot, had all kinds of fluids in my lungs, all that I'm sure appears painful, but honestly it was nothing compared to catheterization.

Which is to say, yes, deadly, yes, you don't want to get it, but no, not the most painful way to shake off this mortal coil. Not even close. I could think of so many worse ways to go.

We're all happy to know you didn't get to the "die" part!

Seriously, though - I was unaware that most of the malarial deaths happen post-coma: I thought it was a totally or mostly awake disease

No, AC is correct. If you carry 0 genes for SS, you are vulnerable to Malaria. If you carry 1 gene for SS, you are protected from malaria, but do not suffer the effects of SS. 2 genes for SS, you get SS.

Without DDT or drugs in a malarial region, if one or both parents are 1-SS, then half their children (statistically) will live. 1-SS/0-SS, half the children are 1-SS, and protected from malaria, half are 0-SS, and likely to succumb. 1-SS/1-SS, half are 1-SS and protected,.25 are 0-SS, and.25 are 2-SS and get SS disease.

Suppose the actual chance of dying from malaria before reproducing is P. IF P >.25P +.25, then the SS gene is favored. 3P/4 > 1/4, implies that P > 1/3. (Assuming no other causes of death, which complicates the math quite a bit.)

Our house is already full of such beasts. Total immune to any sort of spray, and event after swatting them they just walk it off for a minute and then fly away (laughing!). For some reason they don't know its the middle of winter and down to freezing most nights.

At 1000 times normal size, they would still be small enough to be vulnerable to manual blunt trauma(and pulling their wings off just to watch them crawl around and suffer would be much easier); but they would also be large enough to be taken down with BBs at modest range, or "snake load" [jamescalhoon.com] handgun rounds at close range.

Anyone habitually shooting snakes is a douchebag of the highest order. They're wild animals that are pretty much harmless unless you go out of your way to piss them off, and most of the poisonous American varieties are rattlesnakes that will warn you so you don't step on them accidentally.

Just saw Splice, huh? Well, I regret to inform you that real life is not, in fact, a scifi movie. Just like how radiation doesn't spontaneously give people super powers, genetic engineering doesn't randomly create monsters. I realize this may be harsh news for those of you who can't live without the constant threat of a world wide zombie apocalypse, but it's the truth.

From my perspective the most visible people opposed to genetically modified organisms are the least informed. The people who dress up and scream about "frankenfoods" often are doing so out of uninformed ignorance.

Other people (like me) are concerned about this too, but don't parade around screaming government conspiracy about it. Maybe we tend to be a little more open minded about it too, making us reserve judgement until we get some indication as to whether it's going to have major ecological disadvantages that would outweigh the advantages such as making healthy food cheaper or eradicating malaria.

I mean, I personally make transgenic bacteria most weeks, so not everyone who is cautious about GMOs are raving anti-science zealots.

Alternatively, maybe we're hypocrites. I'm guessing we'll get called that and more by extremists on both sides.

It's not so much that I'm afraid of GMOs in themselves, I'm much more afraid of Monsanto owning the rights to my food.

There was a farmer around these parts, somehow had some modified canola enter his field (via wind blowing pollen or..?) and Monsanto sued him for "license fees" on his crop. Think he ended up not having to pay after a few appeals, but the patent was upheld.

The other problem I recall hearing is that often the modified plants are less hardy than the natural version, so if your seed is contaminated it will no longer grow as well *without* roundup. I'm not entirely certain on this one though.

The whole concept of owning a strain of plant that can spread easily, and being able to extract license fees on it, seems very rotten to me, though.

Monsanto being monsanto does make some of those things more of an issue. They're a lot more cavalier with risks than many organizations would be, and they certainly are doing all they can to press the monoculture, but there are plenty of big risks that don't have anything to do with patents.

Yeah, I suppose those are fairly reasonable concerns. Perhaps I put too much faith in the FDA, but I do hope they thoroughly analyzed things before approving them. Although, with monsanto's history of bribing and their general lack of concern for the environment and residents, dumping waste and such, I have my doubts...I've heard there are already quite a few roundup resistant weeds evolving, so it's kind of comical in a way. Develop a grain that is herbicide resistant, and before the patent even expires,

IF you are concerned about safety, FDA or no, there has been extensive research on it. Very [agbioworld.org] many [blogspot.com] studies [biofortified.org] demonstrate no difference between GMOs and non-GM crops, and as a result, the general scientific consensus is that they're safe. Even if we assume Monsanto is influencing the FDA, I doubt they exert the same influence over countless relevant experts. Heck, even countries like Iran and China have developed their own homegrown strains of GMO. Iran made the worlds first Bt rice. Is Monsanto bribing off what one of most anti-US countries in the world?

Those who claim that GMOs are dangerous haven't done a very good job of proving their claims, either. For something to be dangerous, I think we can all agree it must have a reason, yes? Just being GMO is not a valid reason, it must have some sort of chemical compount, not present in the unmodified counterpart, that is dangerous. To date, no such compound from a commercially approved GMO has been identified. No genetic reasoning, no chemical pathways given for the production, and no proven cases of people actually hurt by them. No reason in theory, no evidence in practice. Starfruit [nih.gov] and kiwi [nih.gov] have presented more problems than GMOs, yet no one protests them. And of course, GMOs must be reviewed on a case by case basis, maybe someday the FDA royally screws up and one that kills people is released , but if it is, there'll be a reason for it. And since there is neither a known reason as to why any of the commercial GMOs would hurt anyone nor evidence that it happens, I guess the FDA just puts them in a catagory similar to Generally Recognized As Safe after the testing has been done.

As for the weeds, that is a very real problem. The thing there is, everyone saw that coming. Even Monsanto said it would happen. The problem was that there are only two traits for herbicide resistance, Starlink and Round-Up Ready, and only Round-Up Ready was extensively used. The problem wasn't overuse, but over-reliance. If there were more approved traits, and people used multiple herbicides, it would much more difficult for a weed to develop resistance. Even if it were to acquire the resistance through horizontal gene transfer, if there were multiple genes confirming resistance to multiple compounds, it is still very unlikely. These weeds aren't really 'superweeds' by the way, just regular weeds that are resistant to the most popular herbicide, so they can still be taken out by other chemicals and methods, but still, this never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. I don't know why it wasn't done, why those traits weren't pushed out there, maybe the FDA was lax in approving them, maybe activists protested, maybe the companies just didn't care, whatever, but yes, someone screwed the pooch on that one.

Monsanto being monsanto does make some of those things more of an issue. They're a lot more cavalier with risks than many organizations would be, and they certainly are doing all they can to press the monoculture, but there are plenty of big risks that don't have anything to do with patents.

If it were anything less critical and vital than our food supply, then I'd say take the risk and see what happens. But things like "widespread famine" or "potential dependency on one vendor for food" are not my concept of the ideal failure mode.

When Microsoft implements vendorlock, it's annoying and inconvenient and maybe expensive. When Monsanto implements vendorlock, it's a whole new level of control. I've never seen a single action or statement from them, an unelected private company, that made them worthy of having the sort of power and control that they are reaching for. If you do some research and know anything about them, you likely would never do business with them or any subsidiaries for any reason. I would be hesitant to trust benevolent, self-denying, noble people with this level of control over the food supply. They want me to trust amoral, self-serving, corporate types with that power? Really? It'd be a funny joke if it were not so absurd and misguided.

Just consider one question: if genetically modified foods are so great, if only ignorant jackasses would ever have a reason to doubt their virtues, if the facts are on the side of those who want to sell them, then why does Monsanto fight so hard and spend so much money and lobby so much to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their products as such? Why is it so incredibly important to them that the FDA not allow such a statement of fact on a food label? Whatever happened to the concept of informed consent? Why would someone with all the facts on their side fear informed consent and fight so hard to prevent it? You see, something here just doesn't add up. Anyone who would deprive you of making an informed choice rightly deserves suspicion.

Look, mosquitoes DO bring up virus and bacteria. HOWEVER, they are also bringing us (and other animals), virus from other species. Now, we know a number of these virus are species selective, but only because we are looking for them. Why? Because they produce disease.

The problem is that I am certain that there are virus that move genes across species. IOW, it is the lowly mosquito that not only causes arthopod borne disease, but also has a great deal to do with evolution. The fact is that we see high evol

Other people (like me) are concerned about this too, but don't parade around screaming government conspiracy about it. Maybe we tend to be a little more open minded about it too, making us reserve judgement until we get some indication as to whether it's going to have major ecological disadvantages that would outweigh the advantages such as making healthy food cheaper or eradicating malaria.

As another poster has already said, the problem is the control that goes along with the patent rights.

I'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation. At least with computer code, we design the entire system from the ground up, both the hardware and the software, we have complete control over both, and still cannot guarantee that something will function as intended. Methinks that perfectly verifying no negative and unforeseen consequences with genetics will be more difficult still, since we discovered that system and did not design it and do not fully control it.

Killer bees were an attempt to cross-breed two species of honeybee that normally would never be able to produce offspring. It was supposed to give us the hardiness of the African bee with the docility and honey production of the European bee. What we ended up with was a monster that has caused many highly unpleasant deaths. That wasn't malice on the part of the scientists. It was their inability to completely foresee what the result was going to be and how it was going to interact with an entire interconnected ecosystem of other species. There is precedent for wanting a bit more assurance than what has been offered prior to allowing such creatures in the wild.

I'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation.

I agree with this statement a lot. I don't know much about biotech, mind you, but it always struck me as taking a closed source executable, flipping a bit, running it, seeing the part you intended on changing did change (on the 9999th iteration), a rough bug test (try all the inputs I guess, not much more you can do) and shipping it out.

I wouldn't do that with software, so why we do it with things that can spread on their own, I have no idea.

Funny you mention Africanized bees, because that was just conventional breeding. With absolutely anything, be it new biotech or techniques we've used for thousands of years, there is the potential for unforeseen side effects and unknown unknowns. Without some sort of omnipotence, you can't know every possible side effect that might come about. For example, look at the combustion engine. After years of usage, now we are told it is causing global warming. How could people at the start of the Industrial Revolution have foreseen this? Should we have expected them to never put the fossil fueled combustion engine into use because of what might happen? It is impossible to know what exactly each and every outcome of our actions may be. The smallpox vaccine could have some sort of complex, as of yet undescribed, intergenerational effect that could wipe out hundreds of millions tomorrow, and you can't disprove that statement. GMOs could do the same thing, either in terms of human health or ecologically, and you can't disprove that statement either. That's why the argument isn't 'Prove that there will never be a problem.' The argument is 'Sufficiently prove that there are no foreseeable problems.' And really, it isn't even that, the argument is 'Is the damage they cause (if indeed they do) less than the damage that agriculture will cause without them?' And in the meantime, the evidence we suggests that they are beneficial, so should we forgo those benefits in fear of a potential, but merely hypothetical, problem?

I'd go out on a limb and say it's not clear we need malaria-proof anything.

Spraying -- since the end of the civil war in Mozambique -- and distributing treated mosquito nets has greatly reduced Malaria in Mozambique and the lowveld regions of South Africa. Malaria was eliminated in Europe and the US without malaria-proof mosquitoes. (Remember that nasty DDT? It was intended solely for spraying the inside walls of houses in the south. Farmers saw how well it worked and started spraying it on their crops, and

I wonder where you've been in Mozambique... Costa do Sol doesn't count. I was a contractor in Manica province a couple of years back. I got malaria four times in one year. Every other international I knew contracted malaria. Mozambican colleagues were also infected often. We had treated nets, sprayed pesticides in our facilities, didn't let water stand, etc., etc.

It doesn't work. Maybe you can point to some percentage decrease in an area, but people are still getting and dying from malaria. Relying on individual action (treated nets, spraying own facilities) or an on-going effort organized by the government (a national spraying campaign)... recipe for failure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take those kinds of actions-- any reduction is good. I'm saying that we should work towards total eradication of malaria. Ending poverty should put the material conditions in place, but maybe GM mosquitoes could help along the way.

It seems to me a bit like trying to eliminate spam by engineering internet users who aren't interested in sex or money.

Bad analogy -- they're not changing the humans, they're changing the mosquitoes. So it is rather a bit like infecting spammers with some disease that makes them lose their interest in money, but doesn't endanger their target... And put it like that, it seems like a measure we all can support!

By the way, Mozambique is about twice the size of California with a population of about 22 million. Yes that means there was at least one reported fever that was suspected to be malaria related for every single person in the country.

*Note some people are infected more than once per year and some not at all.

The funny thing is we have been genetically altering plants since the time that botany started being recorded. Matching the perfect set of plants for pollination is also a genetic modification, as is all the cross-breeding of plant species that people have come up with over the last few thousand years.

The funny thing is we have been genetically altering plants since the time that botany started being recorded. Matching the perfect set of plants for pollination is also a genetic modification, as is all the cross-breeding of plant species that people have come up with over the last few thousand years.

The difference is that if you selectively pollinate one strain of plant with another strain of the same plant, you end up with a combination that could have occurred in nature. With genetic engineering, you can modify organisms in ways that no amount of selective breeding of existing plants could have produced.

The funny thing is that you believe these two scenarios are comparable in anything more than the most superficial sense of "yeah, something was modified by human activity" with no regard for the m

The difference is that if you selectively pollinate one strain of plant with another strain of the same plant, you end up with a combination that could have occurred in nature. With genetic engineering, you can modify organisms in ways that no amount of selective breeding of existing plants could have produced.

Not so. Selective breeding is what got us to *ALL* the current species we have now. It is called evolution by natural selection. People are afraid of GMO for some legitimate reasons, such as the legal BS that Monsanto pulls. However, the process itself is exactly the same as that of natural selection, but speed-ed up greatly. There is absolutely nothing in that specifies that a specific gene transplanted from say, salmon to wheat could not be obtained by selective breeding and random mutation. The only diff

The difference is that if you selectively pollinate one strain of plant with another strain of the same plant, you end up with a combination that could have occurred in nature.

Same with genetic engineering. Sure, it might take a while, but horizontal gene transfer does occur. And what can happen in nature or not is wuzzy too. What about species that cross, but extremely rarely, like apples x pear crosses [ars-grin.gov], or Burbank's strawberry x raspberry cross? Or crosses between species that would never meet without humans, like the various black/raspberry and grape crosses that have parents from Old & New World species? Not that that matters, because what happens in nature is irrelevant. Glasses, vaccines, and chemotherapy don't happen in nature either. An appeal to nature is meaningless. Plants don't care how a gene got there, if by a particular gene came from breeding, a natural mutation, a mutagen induced mutation, natural horizontal gene transfer, or genetic engineering, or whatever, they just act on what's there.

With genetic engineering, you can modify organisms in ways that no amount of selective breeding of existing plants could have produced.

Not necessarily true. Every trait arose via some mutation somewhere, and I find it dubious that it could not happen again, given time. You may need evolutionary amounts of time, but it can be done.

The funny thing is that you believe these two scenarios are comparable in anything more than the most superficial sense of "yeah, something was modified by human activity" with no regard for the magnitude of the modification or whether it could have occurred without human intervention.

Sure, we have to be more careful with one than the other, but the principle is still the same, even if the process is different. Ever heard that old story about Churchill, the one where he asks a woman if she will sleep with him for a million pounds? She says yes, and he asks if she'll do it for five, and she asks him what type of lady she thinks she is. He replies, 'My dear, we have already established that, now we are just arguing over the price.' No one has a problem with breeding across species, or selecting mutations, or eating something that is just the product of a billion year old strain of mutant bacteria (that's everything). Compare the diversity of crops we've used extensively, like apples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, or corn, with something like jaboticaba, cassabanana, mauka root, safou, or teff, and tell me we're not playing with tons of altered genes. We've already established that all the forms of all the crops we've created over the years are ok, in principle, this really is just one more step, and in this case, you're only working with one gene at a time, not the half genes of each parent. Genetic engineering is just one more tool. Again, yes, it's more powerful, and with power comes responsibility (and if recent events have shown anything, it is that we can't always trust companies with that power), but the end result is still a plant with altered genes.

Speaking morally or ethically, it's already backwards from how it should be. A farmer can grow natural crops near another farmer who raises patented Monsanto crops. The wind blows and cross-pollination occurs between the two fields. If any legal action is to happen at all, it should be that the farmer growing natural crops can sue Monsanto or the other farmer for failure to contain their customized crops, as they are an unsolicited and unwanted invasion onto his private property.

And can I sue you if your standard hybrid corn cross pollinates my Country Gentleman or Blue Jade corn? I've never heard of that happening, why should it be any different for GMO pollen? That opens up as many cans of worms as Monsanto suing you for 'stealing' my trait.

I'd take that a step further. Everything we eat is just piles upon piles of random mutations stacked up on top of each other. Beyond that, odds are pretty darned good that everything you eat has had gene transfer from some completely different species at one point. As more genomes are sequenced and examined, I'd be willing to bet my left nut that were going to find out that every crop we eat has DNA from various viruses, fungi, bacteria, and insects somewhere in it's genes.

The great thing about plants is that they don't move when you turn your back on them. Also, our efforts to 'genetically alter' plants have previously been over time scales of at least decades, and more usually centuries.

Controlled experiments in this area are a good thing. Exposing mutants to the only ecosystem we have should be done with extreme caution, and carefully monitored for a very long time.

Declaring 'success' after only a few generations is silly as the real problems occur when the mutants _evol

What exactly are you saying, that some *random mammal* will stop dying of malaria because of this thing, and it's population will grow? Is that really a bad thing, I mean malaria isn't the most pleasant way to die, I wouldn't even wish it on a random mammal.

Did you really take the potential cure of malaria and try vigorously to find something that would spin it in a bad light? Because that's not cool. People not dying of malaria > random mammal population growth.

Not necesasrily - most mislabeled "evolved" immunities are actually an enzyme deficiency so that bacteria no longer break down the "poison" or anti-biotics. So while it makes them immune, it actually conserves energy because it no longer produces a certain enzyme. Now, it's possible the missing enzyme was important for other things which makes the bacteria weak, I guess. Anyonw know more about these effects?

Well, I don't understand why Slashdot didn't publish a link to their actual press release [uanews.org] which is much more informative than medicaldaily.com's 5 paragraph paraphrasing.
Their press release explains, that they are basically stimulating the mosquitos' own immune response and metabolism by playing around with the mosquitos' biological production of Akt signalling enzyme, it seems like were hoping to reduce mosquitos' life span by manipulating metabolic functions, and they got other interesting results:

It's always possible it could evolve past this defense, but as a parasite it doesn't evolve as fast as a bacteria or virus. So if they can spread fast enough, it's possible the parasite wouldn't have the time.

As for how this variant would out-compete the normal... If it otherwise matches the normal, it's quite possible this would be enough in and of itself: It wouldn't be spending energy on feeding a common parasite, and therefore would be able to grow stronger & faster on the same amount of food as another mosquito that is infected.

Worst case really is if the trait waters down when they breed with regular mosquitos: Then it might be weak enough that some of the parasite survives, which would then be a way for it to get a chance at resistance...

And how would you make this variant of mosquito out-compete the normal, already established ones?

I'd hazard a guess that the simple, but probably more dangerous way would be to make these already transgenic malaria proof mosquitoes immune to some type of pesticide, so they'd have a selective advantage.

A somewhat safer, but far more expensive way would be to breed large amounts of the malaria proof mosquitoes and release them to just crowd out the normal ones.

Expensive because in addition to the raising a lot of them, you'd have to convince people to let you release large amount of blood sucking parasites near them. Other blood sucking parasites would get rich suing the pants off of that. And it's going to be an uphill battle releasing -any- transgenic organism into the wild. I think concern is entirely justified there as we have a poor track record managing the environment, but I could be convinced it's worth testing if we are reasonably sure it will just prevent malaria transmission. Artificially evolving mosquitoes to be immune to pesticides though would be extremely dangerous and seems like it has a good chance of backfiring if the genes for malaria immunity could be dropped but the pesticide immunity were retained.

Actually they already do this with sterile males (males do not suck blood) pesticide free resistance proof eradication, this also works on a lot of other critters. Problem is the will always come back, they breed fast there is a ecological niche, and we can not afford to eradicate them globally. On the other hand the resistant mosquitoes would have an advantage without further modification, malaria makes them sick too, so do this over the main malarial regions and natural selection will take care of the r

Wait, why do they _need_ to out-compete the others? Depending on exactly how the trait is passed down and such, wouldn't it be possible to spread it after a couple of generations through mating of malaria-proof mosquitoes with the local population?

Malaria harms mosquitoes too. An earlier attempt of this concept tried to outcompete factor and found that due to the added immunity the mosquito quickly rose to around 90% after a few generations. In theory, all they need to do is release this mosquito and it should have the immunity gene take over the vast majority of the mosquito population in short order and protect a lot of humans as a consequence.

Also, you can't really evolve past a defense if the wall is instantly 50 feet high. You need some leeway like not taking the full doses of antibiotics or a rather large quasi-species of HIV to have something in the works that kind-of works and then play off that. This makes the mosquitoes rather instantly immune and likely couldn't be evolved around, anymore than a deer could evolve a defense for a high powered sniper rifle that appeared on the scene rather suddenly in evolutionary terms.

Defeat a high powered sniper rifle is no different that defeating wolf's teeth: it would be prohibitively expensive to defend against them directly, so it's all about avoidance. This mean, stealth and detection of predators (including humans). And for that, deer are equipped moderately well -- and evolution _will_ make them better at spotting hidden humans pretty soon. Just give it time, hunting rifles are a quite new invention.

Setting these mosquitoes up in the wild assumes they will 'take over' the role of existing mosquitoes within the environment. What advantage does being malaria-free have to these mosquitoes? If none, will they survive in the wild? (Or make a big enough dent in the population to matter). Also, what happens when these mosquitoes mate with existing mosquitoes?

Setting these mosquitoes up in the wild assumes they will 'take over' the role of existing mosquitoes within the environment. What advantage does being malaria-free have to these mosquitoes? If none, will they survive in the wild? (Or make a big enough dent in the population to matter). Also, what happens when these mosquitoes mate with existing mosquitoes?

Hey, of course the above are legitimate questions. Tell you what:
a. more funds need to be provided to the creators of the malaria-proof mosquitoes (and, maybe we will have the answer. But,again, maybe not...)
b. it is not necessarily that the malaria-proof mosquitoes would be the only solution to keep malaria at bay (i.e. may not be the most effective way to spend the money)
c. even more, it doesn't come immediately that eliminating malaria is a good thing - what if the presence of malaria keeps (by compe

Here's an idea. How about, instead of curing their diseases, we put out efforts instead into eradicating the bastards. It's not like we don't know how to drive a species into extinction. We've done it, or are on the verge of doing it, to many cool species. So why the hell can't we do it to one of the more bastardly unpleasant ones?

First look at the breeding rate of all the different species we've driven extinct. Then compare to the reproduction rate of mosquitoes. Also compare the food sources and available habitats.

Problem with driving mosquitoes extinct is that they are among the (relatively) few species on the planet that can live almost anywhere we can, and regards us as food. It also only takes a few of them surviving, and then with their reproduction rate they're back very quickly in that area.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's be a bitch to do and there'd be a lot of bykill that we don't really want. It'd also take out a very low level creature in the foodchain.

The complete removal of mosquitoes would be nice but there would be add on effects.

Many other animals (humming birds and Dragonflies to name two) eat mosquitoes. If mosquitoes get wiped out it would likely cause problems for those other species, sure most of them would just eat more of the other insects in their diet but then those might get pushed into extinction which would further impact the predators. And a few of those that rely near exclusively on mosquitoes might be more important to human surviva

Fast-forward 50 years. Natural mosquitoes have been eradicated, replaced by this new genetically modified mosquito. Malaria is wiped off the face of the earth. Two million lives a year are saved. There are rainbows in the sky. Cute puppies and kittens sleep together in every home.

Until some lawyer files a class action lawsuit. Since all mosquitoes are now the genetically modified variety, the researchers and company which developed the buggers and the governments which permitted it are now liable for the pain and suffering associated with every mosquito bite on the planet.

The plan is to replace the wild mosquitos with the genetically modified but if the wild mosquitos are more fit it probably won't work. Quite an achievement, though. Of course they could now create a super mosquito that is more fit, bites the hell out of us but doesn't pass on malaria. Might be worth it.

First we find a gene we want expressed.
Next we breed a super mosquito which is much hardier, has better survivability and better mating potential.
Scary, but it actually could be someones thought process.

Maybe it's just me, but after reading for seemingly months about some seriously stupid studies being conducted, I finally come across one that seems to be worth every penny we would ever spend on it. Malaria via mosquito is a HUGE problem in certain parts of the world.

It's about time we stopped pissing money away, trying to figure out why water is wet, why alcohol in excess makes you think you can sing, or scientifically proving the whole chicken vs. egg thing (sadly, that last one is an actual study)...

Combine my post with yours, and you have a flawed mad scientist scheme of eradicating malaria.
Just so you know, I'm against this sort of thought mainly because I didn't put much into it. But its still something to discuss.
Step 1: Make Mosquito that can't contract Malaria (check)
Step 2: Be really sure this gene is a dominant gene.
Step 3: Make Super Bug who can't die to a certain kind of bug spray
Step 4: Release Super Mosquito into wild.
Step 5: Spray bug spray to kill off a majority of mosquitoes witho

I am sure this anti-malaria thing is somehow racist! How dare those bigot pigs in Arizona try to thwart God's will! People who live in malarial zones are all natural, and their environment should not be altered. Not by crops that grow or bugs that don't carry natural diseases.